> I agree. You can use the same algorithm for computing both. Although it's in some sense the same algorithm, the Roman-numeral version requires far more memor

> I agree. You can use the same algorithm for computing both. Although it's in some sense the same algorithm, the Roman-numeral version requires far more memorisation. For example, once I know that 2 ⨉ 3 = 6, I know without further memorisation (or, rather, with only a meta-memorisation that generalises readily to other contexts) that 20 ⨉ 30 = 600; but, even once I know that II ⨉ III = VI, I have to memorise separately that XX ⨉ XXX = DC. > This supports the arguments that Arabic numbers really are better suited for things like multiplying. They don't have the property that multiplication is convolution I think "They" here is "Roman numerals", not (as the structure seems to suggest) "Arabic numerals", right?